MERCADO v. SHARPE et al
Filing
33
OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 06/20/2011. (nr, )
NQ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No,
10-3118
(SRC)
OPINION
KENNETH SHARPS,
et al,,
Defendants
APPEARCES:
DAN MERCAD0, Plaintiff
pg se
#087, SBI 7
53866A
East Jersey State Prison,
Special Treatment Unit
ON 905, 8 Production Way
Avenel, New Jersey 07001
CHESLER,
District Judge
Plaintiff,
Dan Mercado,
an involuntarily committed
person
pursuant to the Sexually Violent
Predator Act
30:4-27.24,
et
.,
(“SVPA”),
N.J.5,A.
brought this action
asserting claims of constitutional
violations with respect to his
placement on prison grounds
as a civilly committed
person.
This
Court granted plaintiff’s
application to proce..ed n
nauceris (‘lFP”) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § lPlS(a)
(1998), and the
Compla)nt was filed accordingly,
However, at the t.ime ISP was
granted, the Court did not
review the Complaint, pursuant
to 28
U.S.C. § l (2), to
15(e)
9
determine whether the action
st.ould be
di smissed as frivolous or
malicious, for failure •to state
a claim
upon which relief may be
granted, or because it seeks
monetary
relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief.
This
statute allows the Court to
dismiss a case “at any time if
the
court determines that” the
Complaint is frivolous or
malicious,
if it fails to state a cognizable
claim, or if it seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who
is immune from such relief.
28
U.S.C. § 19 For
(e)(2)(B).
5
l
the reasons set forth below,
the
Court concludes that this
action should be dismissed
for failure
to state a claim at this
time.
The Court also finds that
the motions to dismiss the
Complaint and/or for surary
Judgment (Docket entry nos. 12
and
16), filed on behalf of
defendants, Steve Johnson and
Merril
Main, will be denied as moot.
I.
BACKGROUN,j
Plaintiff, Dan Mercado
(“Mercado”), brings this civil
rights
action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, against the following
defendants: Kenneth Sharpe, Deputy
Attorney General for the State
of New Jersey; Ms. Debbie
Hasting, Superintendent of
the East
Jersey State Prison-Special
Treatment Unit (“EJSP—STU”);
Dr.
Merril Main, Administrator of
the New Jersey Department of
Human
Services (“NJDHS”); and Steve
Johnson, Assistant Superintendent
at the EJSP-STU.
(Complaint, Caption and ¶1 4b-4e).
The
following factual allegations
are taken from the Complaint,
and
2
o
H
to
a
a
4
C
C
a
CD
H
o
o
is)
H
Z
to
‘4
o
a
o
4
CD
5
CD
a
it
•
B
o
S
CD
4
CD
H
‘4
to
Hi
it
CD
H
a
to
CD
to
H
C)
a’
CD
a
to
it
it
0
H
a
CD
‘4
to
CD
H
a
a
C
—.
to
to
E
m
H
H
to
to
to
a
CD
a
it
a’
to
CD
to
H
C)
it
0
a
Cl)
L’1
C.
0
‘0
I
to
it
0
Hi
Hi
F’C)
CD
H
to
C)
0
H
H
CD
C)
it
F’
0
a
to
H
a
to
C
it
a’
0
H
i-’N
CD
a
a
H
to
a’
CD
0
it
a’
C)
it
CD
to
it
to
a
Hi
to
0’
H
F’
C)
to
it
CD
‘4
a
H
to
H
H
CD
‘a
CD
0
to
a
Ci)
C)
0
t
CD
Z
to
F’
H
5
it
a’
CD
CD
a
it
0
Hi
o
to
H
H
CD
a
F’
a
4
0
H
4
CD
it
a’
CD
E
F’
it
a’
0
C
it
‘3
CD
to
it
0
‘4
to
H
it
H
a’
CD
CD
‘a
H
CD
to
tot
F’
it
to
a’
it
to
to
it
•
S
4
C
0
a’
a
to
0
a
Hi
CD
a
a
to
a
it
a
CD
it
0
*i
•
‘—
CD
H
C)
to
a
0
to
H
to
‘0
to
‘<
a
14
•
o
B
tot
o
H
a’
a
F’
to
C
0
H
CD
t
C
it
H
a’
to
CD
to
C
F’
a
to
H
0
a
it’Ø
to
C
it
it
0’
to
0
H
it
F’
CD
‘0
C)
to
H
F’
to
it
to
a
a’
0
4
to
a
0
it
C)
t
to
a’
0
it
CD
H
CD
F’
F’
C)
to
to
‘4
it
•
it
C)
0
0
H
a -% a
to
C)
CD
it
0
‘4
to
to
a
t
it
H
0
H
•
H
‘4
‘a
0’
C
CD
a’
F’
a
H
a
CD
F’
‘a
C)
Z
CD
H
t
to
H
it
F’
C)
c
H
to
H
H
a
a
CD
b
CD
to
F’
a
S
•
t
H
0
‘a
H
CD
to
to
a
CD
B
to
a’
to
a
H
CD
to
F’
a
CD
a
it
to
it
a’
CD
E
a’
CD
H
CD
to
F’
0
a
to
to
to
CD
H
to
t
‘<
CD
it
a’
‘a
H
0
it
a’
CD
F’
H
to
it
it
CD
a
a
F’
a
‘a
B
Hi
H
0
to
CD
‘a
H
CD
‘a
to
it
CD
a
0’
CD
it
0
a
it
to
a
CD
II
CD
to
F’
a’
m
it
H
0
E
CD
a
to
-a
C)
0
a
a
it
Z
to
F’
a
5
CD
H
H
F’
H
to
a
CD
Hi
CD
a
•
a
C)
-
•
to
H
0
0
0
it
a’
CD
H
a
S
F’•
‘<
n
0
B
itt
a’
H
to
•
it
t
H
to
F’
a
to
B
C)
0
H
it
a’
CD
H
c
Hi
o
to
a
Z
CD
H
it
a’
CD
H
to
t
a
a
H
H
CD
C)
it
F’
0
a
to
H
o
C)
0
a
a
C
C)
it
it
0
0
Hi
Hi
F’C)
CD
H
to
a
C)
0
B
‘-.
•
a
to
a
‘a
H
0
o
a
t
H
i-’to
B
H
CD
to
F’
a
CD
a
it
5
F’
it
it
CD
a
C)
0
C)
F’
4
F’H
H
‘4
0
a
a
it
W
F’
C)
a
a
‘a
fl-
a
CD
Hi
CD
a
•
CD
a
a
0’
ia
im
a
CD
‘d
N
CD
a’
to
it
a
CD
Hi
CD
a
a
to
it
a’
to
it
to
H
H
CD
‘a
CD
to
a
0
Z
CD
H
C)
to
Ci)
itt
a’
CD
CD
C)
F’
S
Hi
H
F’
to
C)
E
to
0
H
H
F’
‘4
a
o
S
0
4
CD
H
H
0
0
W
CD
t
H
to
to
it
a’
to
it
to
H
H
CD
‘a
CD
to
to
H
to
0
CD
•
-
‘
a
‘4
•
at
H
CD
N
to
C
it
a’
0
H
F’-
a’
to
to
‘a
‘-
a
X
to
to
it
C)
to
it
it
CD
a
at
H
‘a
F’
H
to
0
0
C
t
5
it
a’
0
‘a
a’
to
4
F’
0’
‘4
CD
a
it
to
H
CD
to
F’
to
CD
‘a
H
CD
‘a
to
it
CD
o
it
a
to
a
a’
CD
to
to
CD
to
H
a
a
z
it
0
-
4
C
0
0
fl
0
•
0
a
‘a
H
S
-%
to
a
a
as
F’it
it
CD
a
a
at
to
H
to
C)
to
CD
‘a
H
0
C
t
H
F’
to
0
a
o
a
fl
0
H
-‘H
aCD
CD
C)
a
it
it
i.’0
H
CD
to
C)
at
0
H
a
C
to
to
a
F’
it
a
a
F’
CD
it
it
H
F’
C
Hi
itt
Hi
F’H
0
F’
a
to
to
to
0
H
a
C)
F’
H
t
4
F’
0
F’
‘a
H
H
a’
F’
H
it
C)
‘4
to
‘<
•
C)
to
0
a’
F’
to
0
Hi
a
F’
0
i
F’
0
H
to
it
i-’-
a
CD
H
F’
a
CD
to
a
C
F’-
iQ
a’
a
0
Hi
CD
a
it
0
CD
t
to
H
it
‘<
Z
CD
C
C.
CD
H
to
CD
it
a’
CD
0
a
CD
a
a
a
C)
0
0
H
a
N
CD
F’
to
C
it
a’
0
H
CD
H
CD
F’
it
a’
to
4
CD
it
to
a
a
CD
Hi
CD
a
a
to
a
it
a’
CD
it
0
to
to
‘a
to
a
it
F’Hi
Hi
•
to
H
H
CD
‘a
to
it
F’
0
a
to
to
to
C)
C)
to
H
CD
a’
to
to
C)
0
C
H
it
‘-
a’
CD
0
a
H
‘4
to
C)
H
CD
CD
a
F’
a
‘a
it
a’
F’
to
0
Hi
0
to
CD
to
‘0
C
Hi
0
H
t
t-’it
a CD
a a
F’
Z
0
4
CD
H
to
to
C)
H
F’H
it
CD
‘4
‘a
CD
0
to
Hi
it
a’
H
to
to
it
F’-
H
C)
to
a
0
z
CD
a
it
‘0
H
to
F’
0
C)
a’
i-’to
H
a
a
CD
B
to
2010, Mercado told defendants
Main and Johnson that his
constitutional rights were being
violated by housing plaintiff
and other
residents on prison Property.
Mercado further complains
that the showers are cold
in the EJSP-.
SW, and that when it rains,
water puddles on the floor
from
leaks in the ceiling. He
also alleges that there is
no air
conditioning system in the
EJSp-STU. When Mercado
brought these
issues to the attention of
the administrators he was
told that
they are “working on it.”
(Compl., 1 6).
On May 27, 2010, Mercado
was pat searched and “ion”
searched
when he went to different
locations in EJSP. When
Mercado
complained to the correctional
officer who worked the “ion
scan”
machine that plaintiff is
not a prisoner, the officer
replied
that plaintiff is in a
prison facility. On June 10,
2010,
Mercado states that he
witnessed a correctional
officer perform a
pat search of a public
advocate attorney and a court
clerk who
had visited the EJSP-STU.
(Compl., ¶ 6).
Mercado also complains that,
on June 9, 2010, he was
told by
a correctional officer
not to take a shower over
five minutes
because some of the residents
are breaking out in rashes
from the
water.
(Compl., ¶ 6). Mercado does
not allege that he has
suffered from a rash.
Mercado asks to be placed in
a federally funded
treatment
facility. He also seeks
monetary compensation for
being placed
4
in a prison environment where
he has suffered mental anguish,
harassment,
and discrimination
On September 30,
2010,
(CompL,
¶ 7).
Mercado filed an application for
a
t.empo•rary rest.raining order.
He asked the Court to issue an
order enjoining defEndants from any
type of retaliation.
Order filed on October 15,
2010,
By
this Court denied plaintiff’s
ex
parte restraining order because
Merc ado failed to demonstrate
immediate and irreparable injury,
2010 Order,
Docket entry no.
On November 10,
2010,
loss,
or damage.
(October 15,
8)
counsel for defendant Merril Main
filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Fed.R, Civ.P.
12(b) (6).
First, Main contends that plaintiff’s
claims against
Main in his “official capacity”
are barred by the doctrine of
sovereign immunity, and that the
claims against Main in his
individual capacity must be dismissed
for failure to state a
cognizable claim for relief under
§ 1983.
(See Docket entry no.
12-1)
On December 12,
2010,
counsel for defendant Steven
Johnson
filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to FedR .Civp.
12(b) (6),
and/or for summary judgment.
that p.aintiff’ claims
5
capacity”
are
against
Joh..nson ..ikewise argues
Johnson in his ‘official
barred by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity,
and
that the claims against Main in
his individual capacity must be
dismissed for failure to state a cognizable
claim for relief
0
U
U
N
U
U
-H
U
H
N
N
-H
N
U
U
N
U
U
N
5
-H
N
U
U
H
0
•N
H
U
0
h
-
H
N
U
U
H
H
U
•
U
U
U
U
U
H
N
U
H
H
•
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
0
H
U
U
U.
U
U
tn
U
U.
U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
H
U
H
N
U
N
U
U
0
U
N
U
U
U
U
-H
H
H
5
5
-H
U
N
-H
U
-H
U
N
H
U
N
H
-H
-HI
HI
NI
04
HI
N
S
N
H
N
0
N
U
N
-H
U
5
U
N
U
5
N
U
-H
N
U
0
U
N
U
•N
U
N
N
-H
N
U
U
H
H
0
U
U
-H
U
U
N
-H
U
N
H
S
N
U
H
N
H
U
U
U
N
N
U
-H
N
U
H
0
0
U
N
H
N
NI
HI
DI
04
•UI
NI
N
-H
U
5
N
N
-H
U
H
N
-H
N
U
U
U
N
U
•U
N
-H
N
H
0
U
0
H
-H
H
U
S
U
N
-H
N
U
04
N
U
NI
N
0
U
H
N
U
-H
U
U
U
-H
N
5
H
0
U
-H
H
U
0
U
U
H
-H
N
U
U
5
-H
U
H
-H
U
N
N
U
0
H
U
N
H
-H
H
U
N
H
N
-H
•U
H
H
0
U
U
U
U
N
•U
-H
N
U
U
-H
U
N
U
U
U
H
0
-H
U
U
N
N
H
N
U
•N
U
U
U
H
N
U
-H
U
-H
U
N
-H
U
0
U
N
N
-H
H
N
H
0
U
U
N
H
-H
H
U
•N
H
N
-H
U
H
H
0
U
U
U
-H
H
U
N
-H
U
U
U
-H
H
•-H
U
U
H
N
U
N
-H
U
N
H
U
U
H
N
5
0
H
U
N
H
H
5
S
-H
N
-H
0
U
U
H
N
U
H
N
U
N
U
N
5
0
H
U
U
N
-H
U
•N
H
U
H
N
.U
N
H
0
5
N
N
H
N
U
N
U
H
U
U
U
H
-H
U
0
U
U
•
U
U
N
U
U
U
U
U
•
U
U
•
U
U
U
0
U
U
H
N
H
N
H
H
U
U
U
H
N
U
H
H
N
U
U
N
N
U
-H
H
N
N
-H
H
0
NI
•
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
N
U
U
U
H
-H
N
U
U
5
0
U
N
N
01
HI
04
N
N
U
U
U
0
H
U
U
0
H
U
-H
U
U
•
•
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
H
H
H
N
U
U
N
U
H
-H
U
U
U
N
H
N
U
-H
U
U
U
U
0
U
H
U
H
H
•
•
U
H
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
•
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
5
N
U
H
U
U
U
(N
0
U
U
0
U
U
H
-H
N
U
U
N
U
N
U
H
-H
N
U
U
U
U
U
-H
•
N
N
U
H
0
N
U
U
-H
H
U
H
U
N
5
U
H
U
U
H
-H
U
0
N
H
0
U
H
N
U
H
N
-H
U
-H
U
U
H
N
N
U
U
U
H
-H
H
-H
5
U
U
N
H
U
U
H
N
U
N
U
5
U
U
•
U
0
H
0
-H
U
U
N
N
-H
U
H
N
U
U
N
0
U
N
H
N
NI
01
04
UI
HI
U
N
U
H
-H
H
N
N
H
U
5
U
U
N
5
N
-H
U
N
-H
U
U
H
-H
NI
-HI
HI
NI
04
HI
NI
N
5
H
Q
U
H
-H
U
H
-H
U
N
N
U
0
H
U
N
-H
0
U
N
U
H
N
U
U
N
U
-H
U
N
S
H
U
H
0
N
U
N
•
U
U
N
U
H
H
0
U
N
N
U
•
U
U
N
U
H
N
i
H
-H
N
U
U
5
•Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
U
U
U
H
-H
U
U
U
U
U
U
H
-H
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
•
U
N
H
N
U
U
N
U
U
N
.U
N
N
N
H
H
U
U
U
N
U
0
N
U
U
N
H
0
-H
U
N
U
N
U
•U
N
U
U
•
U
U
U
U
H
H
N
H
H
N
U
U
U
U
N
N
U
N
U
U
•
N
H
-H
N
U
S
N
U
•p
N
-H
H
U
H
N
5
H
0
H
U
N
H
N
U
U
•N
H
U
H
U
H
N
U
U
•N
U
U
N
N
U
N
H
N
U
H
-H
N
U
H
N
H
0
N
N
N
H
H
U
0
U.
H
N
N
H
0
U
U
U
-H
U
H
-H
N
U
U
N
U
U
0
U
N
U
U
N
H
0
H
N
U
4J
N
0
5
U
U
U
-H
U
N
U
U
H
-H
U
H
H
0
U
N
U
U
-
U
U
U
H
-.H
U
N
H
0
-H
H
N
N
N
N
U
U
N
U
N
U
U
-H
U
H
-H
N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DI
U
N
N
H
.U
0
H
0
U
H
•N
H
N
U
-H
U
N
H
U
N
Q4
HI
N
N
U
U
U
•
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
N
-H
L)
U
0
0
U
U
)
H
0
-H
H
N
U
A complaint is frivolous if
it “lacks an argua.ble basis
either in law or in fact.”
5zkev,Wifli
490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989) (interpreting the
predecessor of § l (2),
I5(e)
9
the
former § 1915(d),
The standard for evaluating
whether a
complaint is “frivolous” is an
objective one
Det• sch.
United
.ates, 67 F.3d 1080, 1086-87
(3d Cir, 1995)
.
A
se complaint may be dismissed
for failure to state a
claim only if it appears
“‘beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can
prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which
would entitle
him to relief.’” ines,
404 U.S. at 521 (quoting
son,
at 93-94
355 U.S.
41,
45-46
(1957)).
See also Erickson,
(In a pro se prisoner civil
rights complaint,
551 U.S.
the Court
reviewed whether the complaint
complied with the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a)
(2))
However,
recently,
the Supreme Court revised
this standard
for summary dismissal of a
Complaint that fails to state
a claim
in oftjL.Ibal, 129
S.Ct. 1937 (2009)
The issue before
the Supreme Court was whether
Iqbal’s civil rights
complaint
adequately alleged defendants’
personal involvement in
discriminatory decisions regarding
Iqbal’s treatment dur...ing
detention at the Metr000litan
Detention Center which, if
true,
violated his c.onstitutional
rights.
d.
The Court examined Rule
8(a) (2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure which
provides
that a complaint must contain
“a short and plain statement
of the
claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.”
.
—
—.
—
£ed.R.civL S(a)(2):
Citing its recent Opinion inaq
Atlantic CorD. v. Twpmb 550 U.s.
544 (2007), for the
Propositiofl that “[a] Pleading that
offers ‘labels and
conclusionst or ‘a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do,’
“.Iabfl, 129 S.ct. at 1949 (quoting
Iwoxnh1, 550 0.5. at 555),
the Supreme Court identified
two
working Principles underlying the
failure to state a claim
standard:
First, the tenet that a court
must accept as true all of the
5
allegat contained in a
complaint is inapplicable to
legal conclusions
Threadl,are
itals of the elements of a
cause of action, supported by rec
e conclusory statements,
mer
do
not suffice
Rule 8
does not unlock the doors of
covery for a Plaintiff armed
dis
with nothing more than
conclusions
Second, only a complaint that
states a
plausible claim for relief survives a
motion to dismiss.
Determining whether a complaint
states a Pla
ble claim for
relief will
be a context_specific task usi
that requir the
5
reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and
on sense. But where the
com
we pleaded facts do not
permit the court to infer more ll_n
tha the mere PO55ibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged_
it has not
the pleader is entitled to
relief.”
Rule Civ. Prgç 8
(a)(2).
...
.
...
...
1,
4
I 129 S.Ct. at l949195o
Ccitations omitted)
The Court further explained
that
a court considering a motion
to disujj can choose to
s
5
by identifying Pleadings
begin
that, because they are no more
than
conclusions, are not entitled to the
assumpti of truth.
While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a
complaint they must be supported by
factual allegaj
5
When there are well_pleaded
factual allegatn a court
5
should assume their veracity and
then determine whether they
Plausibly give rise to an
ment to relief.
entitle
‘
Rule 8(d) (1) provides that
0
“[ejach allegaj must be
simple, concise, and direct. No
technical form is requirn
8(d).
8
....
.w.cb.., -a.aar
gal,
129 S.Ct.
Thus,
at 1950.
to prevent a
5umary
dismissal,
civil complaints must
now allege “sufficient factual
matter” to show that a claim is
facially plausible.
This then “allows the court to
draw the
reasonable inferenc.e that the
defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”
at 1948.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in
label emphasizes that a plaintiff
must demonstrate that the
allegations of his complaint are
plausible.
Id. at 1949—50; see
also
505 U.S. at 555, & n,3;
Fowler v. UPMC
ad
ide
578 F.3d 203, 210(3d Cir.
2009>.
,
Consequently,
the Third Circuit observed
that
the “final nail—in—the_coffin
for the
set forth in
Gibson
‘no set of facts’
355 U.S.
applied to federal complaints
before
provides
41,
45—46
rnl.
standard”
(1957),2
that
578 F.3d
at 210.
The Third Circuit now requires
that a district court
must conduct the two-part
analysis set forth in Ibal when
presented with a motion to
dismiss:
First, the factual and legal
elements of a claim should be
separated.
The District Court must
accept all of the
complaint’s well-pleaded facts
as true, but m..ay disregard
any legal conclusions.
1.9 S.Ct. at 1949-501.
In
as stated above, a district
court was
permitted to summarily dismiss
a complaint for fail.ure to
state a
claim only if “it appear led]
beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can
prove no set of facts in
support of his claim which would
entitle
him to relief.
355 U.S. at 45-46.
Under this “no set of
facts” standard, a comp.. aint
could effectively survive a
motion
to dismiss so long as it
contained a bare recitation of
the
c].aim’s legal elements,
.,
9
Second, a Ditret Court must
0
he deterrnje whether the
facts alleged in the coticuait
are sufficient to show that
tIe plaintjf has a
“plausible claim for reflef” [Id.
In
other words, a ocmlat must
do more than allege the
iff! Cfltjteme
claint
to relief
A como has to
at
1
a ant v_ its
facts
See
7±5 F 3o a 23—
s toe Supreme
Crut lnstrcted in
baj, “W1herê the well_pleaded
facts do not permit the
cour to infer more than the
mere P°SSibility of
misconduct,
the comolairt has allege_
it has not ‘show Lnj’’ttat
the Pleader is entItlCd to
relief’’i
l2g S.gt
at
This “plausjbLllt,,
determination will be “a
ext_secifi
cont
task that requir the
reviewing court to
draw on its 7
udicial experience and common
sense” Id.
ler, 578 F.3d at 210-211
This Court is mindful
nrc
however,
that the sufficiency of this
Pleading must be construed
liberally in favor of
Plaintiff
even after Igbal•
See
ksoflvpd
551 U.S. 89
(2007)
er, a court
Moreov
should not dismiss a complaint
with
judiCe for failure to
pre
state a claim Without granting
leave to
amend, unless it finds bad
faith, undue delay, prejudi
or
tility
fu
See
293 F.3d 103, 110—
ill (3d Cir. 2002);
213 F.3d 113, 117 (3d Cir.
eFauve
2000)
.
I II.
Percado br1rgs this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 provides in re1eyat
Part:
§ 1983.
ivery person who, unde Color
of any statute,
ordinance, reguJat
Custom, or usage, of any
State
or Terrto.
5
subjec
or Causes to be subjected
any Citjze of the United
States or other person Withr
the jurisdit thereof
0
to the deprivation of any
rights, Privileges, or
imnuniti Secured by the
Constuto and laws, shall be
liable to the Party
injured in an action at
law, suit in equity, or
other
proper Proceeding for redress
...
Thus,
to state a claim for relief
under § 1983,
allege,
first,
a plaintiff must
the violation of a right
secured by the
0
Const or laws of the
United States and,
second,
that the
alleged deprivation was
coitted or caused by a person
acting
under color of state law.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48
(1988);
36 F.3d 1250, 1255-56
(3d Cir.
1994)
IV.
The Pew Jersey SVgA,
for the Custody,
.A
30:4-2724
et seq.,
care and treatment of
involuntarily comitted
Persons who are deemed to be
sexually violent predators
J.SA
30:4—2726
I
(“Svp”)
The Pew Jersey Department
of Corrections
rLC
30: 4—27, 34 (a)
provides
0
cusg ro.
and the Ne Jerse.r
Departm.en ol. Human Servq
prorides for their
treatment
J.5A
:4-27 0
334(b)
The SVgA was amended in 2003
to require that reguJati
05 be
j
;
Oiriy
by the DOD and the DHS,
11
±OOflu±t10
with
of the AttornE..y General,
taking “into consideration
t1e rights of
the patiEnts as set forth in
section ten of P.L,
30:4-24,2)
[to]
c.
59
(C.
specifically address the
differing needs and
specific characteristics of,
sexually
1965,
and
violent predators,”
In passing the SVPA,
treatment
protocols related to,
3O:4-27,34
the New Jersey Legislature
made
specific findings regarding
SVPs.
N.J..A,
30:4-27,25.
The
Legislature noted that it
was necessary to modify
the previous
civil commitment framework
and additionally separate
SVPs from
other persons who have been
civilly committed,
Id.
The SVPA
defines a SVP as:
a person who has been
convicted, adjudicated delinquent
or found not guilty by
reason of insanity for
commission of
a sexually violent offense,
or has been charged with a
sexually violent offense but
found to be incompetent to
stand trial, and suffers from
a mental abnormality or
Personality disorder that makes
the person likely to engage
in acts of sexual violence
if not confined in a secure
facility for control, care
and treatment,
N,J,S,A,
-27.26(b)
4
O:
3
Those persons committed under
the SVPA shall receive annual
review hearings.
N,J,S,A, 30:4—27,35,
A SVP may be released
from involuntary civil
commitment upon recommendation
of the OHS
or by th.e S VP’s own petition
f..or discharge,
30:4-27,36,
V
A.
nsfer to Priso
Mercado’s main argument appears
to claim that his transfer
to a prison facility, as
a civilly committed per son
under the
SVPA,
is unconstitutional because
he .is subject to the prison
policies in place for the
orderly operation and security
of a
prison facility.
In sasv.Hendricks,
521 U.S.
346
(1997),
the Supreme
Court examined the conditions
of confinement provided by
Kansas’
Sexually Violent Predator Act.
The Act called for the
confinement of sexually violent
predators in a secure facility
because they were dangerous
to the community.
521 U.S. at
363-64.
Pertinent here, the Supreme
Court was aware that the
sexually violent predators in
Kansas were to be held in a
segregated unit within the
prison system.
However, the Court
noted that the conditions
within the unit were essentially
the
same as conditions for other
involuntarily committed persons
in
mental hospitals.
Moreover, confinement under
the Act was not
necessarily indefinite in
duration, and the Act provided
for
treatment.
Id., 521 U.S. at 363, 364,
365—368.
Thus, the
Supreme Court held that
involuntary confinement under
Kansas’
SVPA was not unconstitutional
so long as such civil1y_confine
.,
persons are segregated from
the general prison population
and
afforded the same status as
others who have been civilly
committed
531 U.S.
Id.,
250,
521 U.S.
261062
at 368—69,
See
eligj,you
(2001) (holding same wit..h
respect to the
State of Washington’s SVPA)
Here,
the Mew Jersey SVPA is
essentially the same as the
Kansas and Was.hi.ngton SVP
statutes that were examined
and upheld
13
as cOrstiutioi
reseectve,
SRC),
by the Supreme Court
See
in hendricks and
aarczVVGOOd±
2008 WL 4416455
7-3
(D.N.J
Civil
Sept.
Action No.
23,
C8468
2OQ8;
C
•
Therefore,
this Court
Ofli
finds that Mercaco’ s placement
confjreirer in a Specia
Treatment Unit for SVP residents
that is
a segregated unit in the
East Jersey State Prison,
and of itself,
and
violate the U.S.
does
not,
in
Constitutions Cue Process Clause
or the Eighth Amenents
prohibition against cruel and
unusual
ent
punishm
Accordingly, Mercado’s claim that
his continued
confinement in a segregates unit
within a prison facility is
unconstitutional must be dismissed for
failure to state a
cognizab claim of a
constitutional deprivationi
B.
tionsofCf.
Although plaintiff’ placement
5
in a segregated unit Within
a
prison facility is not, in and
of itself, a constitutional
Recently, the Supreme Court held
constitutional under the
Necessary and Proper Clause, a
federal statute that allowed a
district court to order the civil
commitment of a sexually
dangerous federal prisoner beyond
the date the prisoner would
otherwise be released
No. 081224
130 S.Ct. 1949 (May 17,
2010)
Although these
vii c.ccni
ci
a
0 persons
remained COflfre3 at a feder3il
53. ison,
,
7
namel;. FOl Butn, the Court
aid not add.re s their
c of
sla
civil COO
t
00
r as beinc
.
This Court notes that,
despite Plaintiff’ Contiflual
5
ferr to the EJSP—5mv
c
3
re
as the EJSP administrative
0
segregati
unit, defendant Johnson
confirms that the
“facility is no longer
used as an administrative searegati
0 unit for any
individual,
but instead is used sciey
to house and provide
treatcjen to
Civi7ly Ccmtted
residents pursuant to the
Ot Stetr JCrpS
r
0
aaa 4emjer d, 2(10, at
,
violation, Mercado cakes additional
al.legations concerning the
conditions of confinement at the
EJSP facility.
For instance, he
complains that he is housed in a
prison facility subject to
restrictions.
See
0
o7gfgv,Rrne
457 U.S. 307, 321—22
(1982) (“Persons who have been
involuntarily committed are
entitled to more considerate
treatment and conditions of
confinement than criminals whose
conditions of confinement are
designed to punish.”).
Generally,
the Fourteenth Amendment requires
that civilly
committed persons not be subjected
to conditions that amount to
punishment, Bellv.Wolfi
441 U.S. 520, 536 (1979),
within
the bounds of professional
discretion, Xer, 457 U.S.
at
321—22.
Specifically, in
the Supreme Court held that
civilly committed persons do
have constitutionally protected
interests,
but that these rights must be
balanced against the
reasons put forth by the State
for restricting their liberties.
Id. at 307.
The Constitution is not
concerned with de imis
restrictions on patients’ liberties,
Id. at 320.
Moreover, “due
process requires that the
conditions and duration of
confinement
[for civilly confined persons)
bear some reasonable relation
to
the purpose for wh.i.ch persons
are commi..tted,” .eling,. 531
U.S.
at 26.5.
While the nature of an SVP’ s
confinement may factor in
In .Wolfish, the
Supreme Court held that whether
a
condition of confinement of pretrial
detainees violated their
constitutional rights turns on whether
the disability is imposed
for the purpose of punishment
or whether it is but an incident
of
some. other legitimate government
pu.rpose.
441 U.S. 520, 535—39,
(1979)
15
t]..is balan.ce of what is
reasonable,
it is clearly established
that the substantive due
process protections of te
Fourteenth
Amendment apply to SVPs,
pdiews yN€ei, 253 F.3d 1052,
1061
th
8
(
Ci.r, 2001) (applying the
Fourteenth Amendment’s “objective
reasonableness” standard to
excessive force claims b.rought
by
civilly committed SVPs)
Mercado’s main allegation with
respect to the conditions of
his confinement relates to
his contention that he is
flOW housed
in a prison facility and
has been treated like a
prisoner and
subjected to prison rules.
For instance, Mercado
complains that
his movement is monitored,
and that he was subjected
to a pat
search and finger scan when
he traveled from one area
of the
facility to another.
Mercado also alleges that
the ceiling
leaked when it rained all day,
causing puddles on the floor,
that
showers are cold, and that some
residents allegedly suffered
a
rash from taking a shower
for more than five minutes.
The Third Circuit has held
that placement of a civilly
committed sv in segregated
confinement does not violate
due
process unless the deprivation
of liberty is in some way
extreme.
See
243 Fed. Appx. 719, 721
(3d Cir,
2007) (applying an•nv,Co.pe.
515 U.S. 472 (1995.),6 to
6
In nij, the Supreme Court
held that there was no
cognizable liberty interest in
freedom from additional
in a prison setting.
restraint
See 515 U.S. at 486 (“We
hold that [the
prisoner’s] discipline in
se.gregated confinement did not
the type of. atypical, significant
present
d..eprivation in which a State
might conceivably crea.t..e. a
liberty inter€.st.”)
16
CD
CD
CD
5
CD
CD
CD
5
CDI
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD.
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
HCD
CD
HC
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-
C)
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
H’
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
S
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
5
•
CD
H
CI
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
H’
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HC
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
H)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
DC
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD:
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
CD
CD.
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
C)
CD
CD
CD
C
()
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
DC
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Z
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
H’
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H
CD
•
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
-
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HC
CD
CD
H)
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
DC
CD
CD
CD
CD
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
DC
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
Z
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
5
CD
CD
N-
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
•
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
H-
CD
C
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
S
5
CD
0
C)
HCD
CD
CD
CD
H)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
S
CD
0
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
-
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
HCD
H0
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
5
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
DC
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
HCD
•CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
H0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
0
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H’
CD
CD
H0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H-
DC
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
5
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
S
CD
X
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
HCD
LCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
HCD
DC
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
0
CD
0
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
5
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
5
CD
CD
CD
H-
C)
0
CD
CD
CD
N
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HC)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
-
5
0
CD
CD
DC
HCD
CD
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
5
CD
H-
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
<
CD)
CD
HCD
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
5
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C)
H-
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-
5
CD
CD
C)
CD
CD
C
H
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
CD
CD
CD
5
HCD
CD
C
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
C)
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD
>1
CD
CD
CD
CD
HCD
CD)
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
H-
DC
N)
c
•
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD)
CD
CD
CO
N)
-
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
5
H
CD
HCD
CD
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?